In defense of self-defense

Where companies should protect their employees, they protect themselves instead

Pizza delivery companies ought to reconsider prohibiting their employees from defending themselves from robbers and other criminals.


Neither should the courts punish the companies for allowing it.

A pizza delivery man in Wichita, Kan., has reportedly been fired for arming himself and recently firing at a would-be robber. It is a franchise operation, but the pizza corporation does have a policy against employees being armed.

Well, we’re sorry the guy in Wichita got axed, but glad he was armed, because so was the attempted robber, whom the delivery man shot at and apparently missed.

If a company decides, on its own, to prohibit armed employees – and the employees agree – that’s one thing. But you have to know the no-gun policies today are issued out of abject fear of lawsuits by – um, criminals. Nice. So the companies would rather protect themselves financially than have their employees protected from harm? There’s something wrong with this picture.

If the country’s laws don’t already, they need to explicitly immunize companies and employees from lawsuits arising out of employee self-defense.

Whether one arms himself in a dangerous situation should be purely up to that person – not some lawyer sitting in a leather chair in some warm office somewhere.



Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Letter: Losing big piece of Augusta

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Letter: The swamp’s slush fund

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Letter: Behind Veterans Day

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Editorial: Jump start the season